Decision-analysis modeling of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for surgical inpatients using variable risk assessment models or other strategies.

BACKGROUND: Surgical inpatients are at a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can be life-threatening or result in chronic complications. Thromboprophylaxis reduces the VTE risk but incurs costs and may increase bleeding risk. Risk assessment models (RAMs) are currently used to target thromboprophylaxis at high-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the balance of cost, risk, and benefit for different thromboprophylaxis strategies in adult surgical inpatients, excluding patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery or were under critical care and pregnant women. METHODS: Decision analytic modeling was performed to estimate the following outcomes for alternative thromboprophylaxis strategies: thromboprophylaxis usage; VTE incidence and treatment; major bleeding; chronic thromboembolic complications; and overall survival. Strategies compared were as follows: no thromboprophylaxis; thromboprophylaxis for all; and thromboprophylaxis given according to RAMs (Caprini and Pannucci). Thromboprophylaxis is assumed to be given for the duration of hospitalization. The model evaluates lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within England's health and social care services. RESULTS: Thromboprophylaxis for all surgical inpatients had a 70% probability of being the most cost-effective strategy (at a £20 000 per QALY threshold). RAM-based prophylaxis would be the most cost-effective strategy if a RAM with a higher sensitivity (99.9%) were available for surgical inpatients. QALY gains were mainly due to reduced postthrombotic complications. The optimal strategy was sensitive to several other factors such as the risk of VTE, bleeding and postthrombotic syndrome, duration of prophylaxis, and patient age. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis for all eligible surgical inpatients seemed to be the most cost-effective strategy. Default recommendations for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, with the potential to opt-out, may be superior to a complex risk-based opt-in approach.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital. METHODS: A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings. RESULTS: Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.

Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools for identifying major trauma in elderly injured patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with major trauma are frequently undertriaged, increasing the risk of preventable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of prehospital triage tools to identify suspected elderly trauma patients in need of specialized trauma care. METHODS: Several electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to February 2019. Prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined prehospital triage tools as index tests (either scored theoretically using observed patient variables or evaluated according to actual paramedic transport decisions) compared with a reference standard for major trauma in elderly adults who require transport by paramedics following injury. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with 11 studies examining theoretical accuracy, three evaluating real-life transport decisions, and one assessing both (of 21 individual index tests). Estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 19.8% to 95.5% and 57.7% to 83.3% for theoretical accuracy and real life triage performance, respectively. Specificity results were similarly diverse ranging from 17.0% to 93.1% for theoretical accuracy and 46.3% to 78.9% for actual paramedic decisions. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. There were no obvious differences between different triage tools, and findings did not appear to vary systematically with major trauma prevalence, age, alternative reference standards, study designs, or setting. CONCLUSION: Existing prehospital triage tools may not accurately identify elderly patients with serious injury. Future work should focus on more relevant reference standards, establishing the best trade-off between undertriage and overtriage, optimizing the role prehospital clinician judgment, and further developing geriatric specific triage variables and thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.

Assessing prognosis and prediction of treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease associated with reduced quality of life and substantial costs. It is unclear which tests and assessment tools allow the best assessment of prognosis in people with early RA and whether or not variables predict the response of patients to different drug treatments. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on the use of selected tests and assessment tools in patients with early RA (1) in the evaluation of a prognosis (review 1) and (2) as predictive markers of treatment response (review 2). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; searched to September 2016), registers, key websites, hand-searching of reference lists of included studies and key systematic reviews and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Review 1 - primary studies on the development, external validation and impact of clinical prediction models for selected outcomes in adult early RA patients. Review 2 - primary studies on the interaction between selected baseline covariates and treatment (conventional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) on salient outcomes in adult early RA patients. RESULTS: Review 1 - 22 model development studies and one combined model development/external validation study reporting 39 clinical prediction models were included. Five external validation studies evaluating eight clinical prediction models for radiographic joint damage were also included. c-statistics from internal validation ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for radiographic progression (different definitions, six studies) and 0.78 to 0.82 for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Predictive performance in external validations varied considerably. Three models [(1) Active controlled Study of Patients receiving Infliximab for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (ASPIRE) C-reactive protein (ASPIRE CRP), (2) ASPIRE erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASPIRE ESR) and (3) Behandelings Strategie (BeSt)] were externally validated using the same outcome definition in more than one population. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis suggested substantial uncertainty in the expected predictive performance of models in a new sample of patients. Review 2 - 12 studies were identified. Covariates examined included anti-citrullinated protein/peptide anti-body (ACPA) status, smoking status, erosions, rheumatoid factor status, C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen joint count (SJC), body mass index and vascularity of synovium on power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS). Outcomes examined included erosions/radiographic progression, disease activity, physical function and Disease Activity Score-28 remission. There was statistical evidence to suggest that ACPA status, SJC and PDUS status at baseline may be treatment effect modifiers, but not necessarily that they are prognostic of response for all treatments. Most of the results were subject to considerable uncertainty and were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis in review 1 was limited by the availability of only a small number of external validation studies. Studies rarely investigated the interaction between predictors and treatment. SUGGESTED RESEARCH PRIORITIES: Collaborative research (including the use of individual participant data) is needed to further develop and externally validate the clinical prediction models. The clinical prediction models should be validated with respect to individual treatments. Future assessments of treatment by covariate interactions should follow good statistical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Review 1 - uncertainty remains over the optimal prediction model(s) for use in clinical practice. Review 2 - in general, there was insufficient evidence that the effect of treatment depended on baseline characteristics. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042402. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Obinutuzumab with Bendamustine for Treating Follicular Lymphoma Refractory to Rituximab: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of obinutuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence on its clinical and cost effectiveness when used in combination with bendamustine in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) refractory to rituximab. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), the School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield, produced a document summarising the key points from the company submission alongside a critical review. Efficacy for progression-free survival (PFS) and safety was positively demonstrated in the pivotal GADOLIN trial, which compared obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance (O-Benda+O) against bendamustine monotherapy. Data on overall survival were immature. The company submitted a model-based economic analysis, including a patient access scheme. The ERG identified a number of limitations, in particular the absence of subgroup analysis and the approach used by the company to estimate overall survival (OS), which was more favourable to the intervention arm. The key uncertainty was the duration of the treatment effect on OS. This uncertainty is expected to be reduced when the final analysis of the GADOLIN trial is reported. Consequently, the NICE appraisal committee recommended O-Benda+O in the population covered by the marketing authorisation within the Cancer Drug Fund until NICE is able to review the guidance following publication of the final analysis of GADOLIN.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Pertuzumab for the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Early-Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer of pertuzumab (Perjeta®; Roche Products Limited) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost- effectiveness for the neoadjuvant treatment of women with high-risk, early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer when used in combination with trastuzumab and chemotherapy. High-risk women included those with locally advanced (including inflammatory) breast cancer and women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer (classified as T2/3 or N1). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the Evidence Review Group and the outcome of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. The clinical data were mainly taken from a phase II, randomised, open-label, active controlled study (NeoSphere), which reported a significant advantage in terms of pathological complete response rates of pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and chemotherapy, compared with trastuzumab alone with chemotherapy (45.8 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.0141). The company did not make any indirect comparisons. A meta-analysis of 12 neoadjuvant studies investigating the relationship between pathological complete response and event-free survival was used to extrapolate the outcomes reported in the NeoSphere study. A cardiac safety study (TRYPHAENA) demonstrated the safety of pertuzumab. The company undertook a model-based economic evaluation of neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and docetaxel compared with neoadjuvant trastuzumab and docetaxel over a lifetime horizon from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be £20,104 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for pertuzumab alongside trastuzumab and docetaxel compared with trastuzumab and docetaxel, which was revised to £21,869 per quality-adjusted life-year gained following the clarification process. The Evidence Review Group corrected an error in the digitisation of the survivor functions and modified the clinically inappropriate assumption that recurrence is zero after 7 years. The Evidence Review Group's probabilistic base case was £23,962 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. During the appraisal, to mitigate the uncertainties associated with the evidence, the company offered a patient access scheme, which led to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee recommending pertuzumab in this patient group, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the patient access scheme.

GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING AND EXPANDED IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY TESTS TO GUIDE SELECTION OF CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS IN BREAST CANCER MANAGEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report was to assess the clinical effectiveness of two Gene expression profiling (GEP) and two expanded immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests compared with current prognostic tools in guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence on clinical effectiveness of OncotypeDX, IHC4, MammaPrint, and Mammostrat, compared with current clinical practice using clinicopathological parameters, in women with early breast cancer was conducted. Ten databases were searched to include citations to May 2016. RESULTS: Searches identified 7,064 citations, of which forty-one citations satisfied the criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence for OncotypeDX demonstrated the impact of the test on decision making and there was some support for OncotypeDX predicting chemotherapy benefit. There were relatively lower levels of evidence for the other three tests included in the analysis. MammaPrint, Mammostrat, and IHC4 tests were limited to a small number of studies. Limitations in relation to study design were identified for all tests. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for OncotypeDX is considered to be the most robust. Methodological weaknesses relating to heterogeneity of patient cohorts and issues arising from the retrospective nature of the evidence were identified. Further evidence is required for all of the tests using prospective randomized controlled trial data.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana®, Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m2 of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.

Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of bevacizumab (Roche Products) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology provided within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a phase III, multicentre, multinational, two-arm, randomized, open-label study with the primary objective of confirming the non-inferiority of oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) compared with oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX-4) in adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRC who had not previously been treated. The ERG considered that the NO16966 trial was of reasonable methodological quality and demonstrated a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival when bevacizumab is added to either XELOX or FOLFOX-4. The ERG considered that the size of the actual treatment effect of bevacizumab was uncertain due to trial design limitations, imbalance of a known prognostic factor, relatively short treatment duration compared with that allowed within the trial protocol, and interpretation of the statistical analyses. The manufacturer's submission included a de novo economic evaluation using a cost-effectiveness model built in Microsoft® Excel. The ERG believed that the modelling structure employed was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The areas of uncertainty identified by the ERG included whether chemotherapy would be administered continuously or intermittently, patient access scheme (PAS) costs and uptake, survival that was dependent on the statistical analyses used, and the likely duration of continued treatment with bevacizumab after cessation of oxaliplatin and the efficacy associated with continuation. The STA described here highlighted the challenges in appraising interventions with a complex PAS. Based on the analyses that include a discount to the list price of oxaliplatin, the ERG concluded that the ICERs for the addition of bevacizumab to XELOX or FOLFOX were both over £50 000. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin and either 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid or capecitabine (i.e. FOLFOX or XELOX) was not recommended for the treatment of mCRC.